Hi Mike;
Given how close "mod_balancer" is to the traditional WO deployment,
it might be a nice approach for "mod_balancer" to take on-board the
few additional concepts necessary to support something which works
like "JavaMonitor / wotaskd" so that deploying a WO system does not
need a sp
Given how close "mod_balancer" is to the traditional WO deployment,
it might be a nice approach for "mod_balancer" to take on-board the
few additional concepts necessary to support something which works
like "JavaMonitor / wotaskd" so that deploying a WO system does not
need a special Apach
Hi Mike;
I spent a bit of time on this a few years ago and developed (and open-
sourced) an AJP WO adaptor (AJP is a binary stream for HTTP used
widely with Jetty and Tomcat deployment) to work with the built-in
Apache 2.2 mod_balancer / mod_ajp / mod_proxy / mod_???. It worked
really wel
On 8. Jul. 2009, at 15:09 , Mike Schrag wrote:
seriously? I remember the exact inverse statements being made
when, only four-ish years ago, they tied WO's release schedule
back into the main development tools. I think it's good news, but
hopefully it means that they'll stop developing their
On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
seriously? I remember the exact inverse statements being made
when, only four-ish years ago, they tied WO's release schedule
back into the main development tools. I think it's good news, but
hopefully it means that they'll stop developing thei
seriously? I remember the exact inverse statements being made when,
only four-ish years ago, they tied WO's release schedule back into
the main development tools. I think it's good news, but hopefully
it means that they'll stop developing their unnecessary deployment
that virtually nobody u
On Jul 8, 2009, at 5:46 AM, William Hatch wrote:
seriously? I remember the exact inverse statements being made when,
only four-ish years ago, they tied WO's release schedule back into
the main development tools. I think it's good news, but hopefully it
means that they'll stop developing the
Hi Bill,
On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:16 AM, William Hatch wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 5:46 AM, William Hatch wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be
tied to OS X and Xcode
Yes, all of our applications are deployed in a J2EE container 6%
Yes, some of our applications are deployed in a J2EE container 20%
No, we never deploy applications in a J2EE environment 74%
Yes, absolutely, and preaching to the choir is doing nothing for us all.
Bill
On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 5:46 AM, William Hatch wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied
to OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more
frequ
Le 09-07-08 à 12:32, Miguel Arroz a écrit :
Hi!
On 2009/07/08, at 17:14, Mark Morris wrote:
??? I'd guest that the majority of WO projects are deployed like
this. Servlet deployment is a distant second.
Chuck
I'm glad someone else said it. I thought perhaps I was just out of
touch!
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied
to OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more
frequent releases of updates to the frameworks.
seriously? I remember the exact inverse statements being made when,
only four-ish years ago, they tied WO's release s
Hi!
On 2009/07/08, at 17:14, Mark Morris wrote:
??? I'd guest that the majority of WO projects are deployed like
this. Servlet deployment is a distant second.
Chuck
I'm glad someone else said it. I thought perhaps I was just out of
touch!
-- Mark
Surveys say so, I think. Pascal?
On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 5:46 AM, William Hatch wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied
to OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more
frequent rele
On Jul 8, 2009, at 5:46 AM, William Hatch wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied
to OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more frequent
releases of updates to the frameworks.
seriously? I
On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied
to OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more frequent
releases of updates to the frameworks.
seriously? I remember the exact inverse statements being made wh
On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied
to OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more frequent
releases of updates to the frameworks.
And OS X Software Update won't mess with your production install
Yeah, this is really good news. Now that WO releases won't be tied to
OS X and Xcode releases, I'm betting we'll see far more frequent
releases of updates to the frameworks.
Dave
On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:51 AM, Paul Stringer wrote:
Wow doesn't happen often but WebObjects getting a mention in th
Wow doesn't happen often but WebObjects getting a mention in the Mac
press. It's remarking on the dropping of WebObjects deployment from
Snow Leopard Server (not like it matters WOInstaller does the job
fine). WOLips gets a mention too nice!. D.E. Dilger really seems to
like to give a menti
19 matches
Mail list logo
